M/S SAVORIT LTD vs M/S FIDALITY FINANCE LTD — C.A. No. 4992/2014

Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010161292010

Filing Date

14-May-2010

Registration No

C.A. No. 4992/2014

Diary Number

16129/2010

Order Date

29-Apr-2014

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S SAVORIT LTD

    Adv. ANIL KUMAR TANDALE (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S FIDALITY FINANCE LTD

    Adv. K. K. MANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Apr-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 24-Feb-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 16-Dec-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 26-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 08-Oct-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 08-Oct-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 09-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 02-Aug-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 05-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 02-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 22-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 04-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 03-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 21-Mar-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 30-Jan-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 05-Dec-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 14-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 4992/2014

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Savorit Ltd v. Fidelity Finance Ltd (CA 4992/2014) The Supreme Court allowed appellants' appeal against the Madras High Court's December 2009 judgment, which had affirmed recovery proceedings against the guarantor. The appellants (principal borrower and guarantor) had settled a Rs.34.21 lakh lease finance debt for Rs.9 lakh in November 2001; the finance company certified no amount was due and returned guarantee documents. The Court held that once the agreed settlement amount was paid, the official liquidator could not recover further sums from the guarantor, finding the High Court failed to recognize this fact. However, the order preserved the liquidator's right to approach a competent court if alleging fraud in the settlement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case